Democrats Disagree on Fighting Global Warming

President Barack Obama is moving swiftly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He cleared the way this week for California to set strict new carbon-dioxide standards for cars and trucks. A dozen other states are poised to adopt the standards once they are approved.

At the same time, Obama told federal regulators to push ahead with higher fuel-economy requirements. Congress approved new mileage standards in a 2007 energy bill. It mandates average fuel-economy rates of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, but rules to achieve it never were finalized.

Obama undoubtedly expected some opposition from Republicans. With Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, however, he would seem assured of accomplishing his larger goal of combating global warming.

But that's not the way things are working out. Midwestern Democrats are starting to push back. They fear overly aggressive action on climate change could cost badly needed manufacturing jobs when state economies are reeling.

Auto executives oppose both California's bid to set strict carbon-dioxide standards and federal efforts to increase fuel economy. With new-car sales plunging, automakers and industry groups say they say they cannot meet the proposed standards. Imposing them could seriously harm struggling U.S. manufacturers, they say.

That's not a threat to be taken lightly, especially now, as the cascade of bleak economic news continues. Boeing announced 5,500 more job cuts on Wednesday, and another 75,000 job cuts in several industries were announced Monday. That brings the number of jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007 to more than 2.6 million.

Automakers' claims probably are at least somewhat overstated.

Japanese car companies make cars in a single plant for domestic, European and American markets with different emissions and safety standards. U.S. diesel engine manufacturers build power plants for on- and off-road equipment — each with its own emissions standards — in the same plants.

But the debate about auto-emissions rules foreshadows a larger struggle. Obama and Democratic legislative leaders are promising a bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions by year's end.

That probably will impose difficult challenges on Midwestern states, where heavy manufacturing still is a big part of the job base and where coal-fired power plants supply most of the electricity. Missouri, for example, gets more than 80 percent of its power from burning coal, which is a major source of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama favors a cap-and-trade system for reducing emissions. Such a plan would freeze the amount of permitted greenhouse gas discharges and establish a market for emissions credits. Companies that cut emissions would sell "credits" to companies whose emissions increased.

In the short term, we hope the economic impact of new emission requirements on Midwestern states can be mitigated. But long term, the nation cannot afford continued foot-dragging on climate change.

A study published this week shows that even if emissions were cut drastically, problems caused by global warming will continue — imposing a whole different set of costs and problems, from rising sea levels to Dust Bowl-like droughts.

The trick is to balance the short-term costs of reducing emissions with the potentially disastrous long-term costs of global warming. And to understand that the less carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere now, the less our children must worry about it in decades to come.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.